is this not a dialogue elena ? if not, why ? correction 1

is this not a dialogue elena ? if not, why ?

This is not a dialogue Ton because a dialogue is not just about two people talking to each other but about two beings relating to each other and encompassing everything they can about themselves.

When in a dialogue one person consistently neglects to address too many aspects of the other individual, the dialogue has vices and can result in a harmful experience for both of the participants.

Hurting others by failing to acknowledge many areas of their self is an aspect of limited consciousness and particularly of consciousness of the other persons being and one’s own capacity to love. Reducing a conversation to personal attacks without being able to address the many areas the person is presenting, neglecting to answer to the facts, resorting to circular thinking in which the issues presented are consistently avoided, are mechanisms that tend to draw energy out of the participants and not replenish it That "drainage" will separate them even more. A dialogue cannot be a descending octave. It is by its very nature an arena in which the participants place each other’s self above everything else and refrain from hurting the other. When the aim of one of the participants is to hurt the other or others, it is not a dialogue. It is actually a form of crime.

I have been exploring this subject for a while now and still am only at the beginning of it and should thank you for fighting with me so that my exploration can take place for this has had sparse moments of dialogue.

I do wish to systematize this understanding for future references and other people blogging and trying to work together.

One of the conditions for a dialogue is equality.

No matter the role of the dialoguers if there is not an understanding of human equality it is not a human dialogue. A doctor talking to a patient like the sicko that pays him is not a human doctor but someone doing poorly his horrible job to make his dough.

If you consider yourself to have experience as a therapist, please bare this in mind because the first thing any therapist who pretends to help another human being has to do is treat them as equals. What the other individual needs is respect, not pampering and in assuming a position of superiority or assuming that the other person is deranged, there is no respect.

Likewise, if a teacher treats his students with superiority, he or she is not a teacher because the first step towards any form of education must be human. There is no education if the interchange is not based on human equality and we have all tasted what a good teacher and a bad teacher is and how in our times, all of us, so easily become abusive of each other’s dignity.

We should see and say the same about parents and their children, bosses and employees and practically any relationship amongst people in which dialogue cannot take place precisely because it is founded on an abusive foundation. 

The spirit of a dialogue is the spirit of the participants and the possibility of the dialogue rendering a positive outcome for both of them is in the spirit of their humaneness.

The sphere of each participants self is to be protected by all the participants and attacks on their persona should not take place. How we are to accomplish questioning each other without resorting to the dis-integrity of the other person’s dignity is something we’ve yet to learn.

The “intention” of the participants and how they are to accomplish that intention must be taken into consideration and the participants must check their behavior with their intention constantly to assess how effective their methods are.

The aim of all dialogue is bonding: Love.

The aim of all dialogue is not agreement but the manipulation of agreement and disagreement to reach a strengthening of the relationship between the participants in a bond of mutual respect, because in acting ethically in the dialogue they may not come to agree on the subject but can respect each other in their lives. The respect that is expressed in a dialogue is what allows for each of the participants to withdraw from the dialogue stronger in the sphere of their self and the strength of those selves is what will allow them to take on further dialogue.


The guidelines presented here are useful for dialogue when there is disagreement. When there is agreement, a dialogue is a source of joy for both participants because it becomes a dialogue of mutual and worldly exploration.

Vices in the dialogue such as

Ridiculing

Patronizing

Subverting the dignity of the other individual by an unwillingness to move out of the sphere of their self

All forms of aggression

Dis-acknowledging the partner's statements
Avoiding the questions
aggressive intonation

Are first, not dignified and second will bring any dialogue to a dead and painful end for both participants. Aggressors are equally hurt when they succeed in hurting another participant because what ever in them wishes to hurt another will gain strength and tend to repeat itself. These “recurrences” should be avoided in all areas of social life.

A moderator’s job is to point out the vices and assess if the intention of the participants is dignified enough for the dialogue to take place. A moderator should confront the participants before they even begin to speak and each participant should state their aim.

Since the aim of all dialogue is love, the moderator should point out when a statement that is not friendly or loving takes place and the participants should correct their approach in order to re-align them selves with the objective.

The participants must be able to state their truth and confront it with facts, attitudes, intentions, background, situation and objective.

They must be able to accept the confrontation of their truth in logical argumentation and not resort to repetitive behavior and statements when presented with new evidence.

They must be patient with each other and have a sincere willingness to listen and reach a ground so common that the dialogue will always be possible. Renunciation to dialogue is not an option for human beings.  

They must be able to synthesize their conflict and accept a moderator’s help so that the dialogue can move ahead positively.

A real dialogue is not the sucking of another’s blood like ticks do but a pollination of flowers like bees do.

When the flower is pollinated and the bee carries its treasures, the soul of the participants allows for the sprouting of new flowers.

In all dialogue three spheres must be taken into consideration and probably three times three.

the sphere of the individual

the sphere of friendship

and the sphere of humanity

The sphere of personal truth

The sphere of social truth

And the sphere of objective truth (or what the participants are willing to agree upon according to their conscience)

The personal reality

The Social context

And the human alternative

Participants should train themselves to take on the positive aspect of what the other person has said first to reassure them that that has also been heard and then take the aspect that they don’t agree with and wish to have exposed and confronted. This practice tends to keep the participant’s good will alive and reassures them that the intention of the dialogue is to come to a form of healthy co-existence even if the agreement is not reached.

Participants who consistently threat to abandon the dialogue and the person in the dialogue because they are retrograde, fascists, sickheads, deranged, egotistic, etc are not in a condition to dialogue. The threat of abandonment is not conducive to a human solution but inductive of inhuman separation. In the inability to hold each other beyond the disagreement the participants kill each other psychologically and that mutual death is harmful to both of them. It strengthens their intolerance and one sidedness and the abusive behavior they’ve practiced on each other reinforces itself and tends to repeat itself in the lives of the participants.

Once a separation is accepted, it is easy to keep separating and not trying to look for places of agreement. The death of dialogue is the beginning of inhuman behavior.